"The point I was trying to make was that I definitely see both sides of that argument. I'm amazed every single day by some of the amazing things out there. And yet, at the same time, I'm frustrated by anything that gets in the way of making it even better. So, I'm super optimistic about innovation, and all of the possibilities out there. And I believe, quite strongly, that you cannot stop innovation -- but you absolutely can hinder it. So any "anger" that people feel, which may give them a sense of frustration and pessimism is my frustration about the roadblocks and barriers and hurdles that people throw in the way of this innovation -- either due to a misunderstanding of innovation, or through laziness and an unwillingness to change to take advantage of those new opportunities. "

Mike says it better (and more succinctly) than I can. I realize some of my posts lately, esp. the ones dealing with Wikileaks and the attempts to corral and lobotomize the net, are very intense and probably boring to people who want to read about art. I have explained my reasoning before: art is about life, and the net is my home, so things that involve the net involve my home.

Most of the Second Life politics regarding LL I have left to other better-informed writers than myself. Since I don't get around to very many shows or openings for various reasons, I can hardly be an art pundit, commenting regularly on other people's work. So I blog about my few and occasional showings.

What I do write about is what affects my thinking, my moods, my work and my home. Having lived through the earlier net politics (MS's sabotage of HTML and Netscape, the monetization/billboardization of the web, the monopolization of the backbone pipes and the killing off of independent and local ISPs, etc), I am very aware and sensitive to business/political moves that could lead to the narrowing of the possibilities of this fantastic and revolutionary medium.

So please, as Mike so very well writes, try to see my "anger" as frustration and warning regarding the topics I write about that impinge on the freedoms and possibilities inherent in the net. I love it, unashamedly and unabashedly. I've been here longer than most people and I wish to see only the furthering of this expansion into a future that is positive and enlightening for all.

7 comments:

Read Tim Wu's new book, The Master Switch. It may--or may not--make you feel better. Wu shows how every disruptive technology eventually gets controlled by a monopoly or small cabal of them.

That's the bad news. At the same time, Wu sees the Internet as different in a few ways from telephony, radio, and television. Obviously he's a proponent of Net Neutrality even as he demonstrates the attempts to gradually undermine it by the teleco megacorps.

It's an open question to Wu how it will come out. We can only hope and agitate for the wonderful and open environment we have come to expect...and press for antitrust legislation in our nations if the telecos begin to decide what we can and cannot do.

In the United States, in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision about anonymous campaign contributions by corporations, the future may ride on whether Google or Comcast can by a politician.

Well, as usual, I totally agree.....and this also applies to my anger and frustration with the Boys. When a company has such a clear lead in a field like SL had, to squander it by not making tools/platform better, faster, is such a stupid waste. What they COULD have done would have been amazing, now we have to wait to see if IWz will take up the baton and run with it. I get impatient with this waiting too.

I'm not so sure, Apmel. It might have begun with the US®, but watching policies in England, Australia, France and other places leads me to believe we are experiencing the rise of the megacorps, the multinationals predicted by cyberpunk and earlier writers. Flags are mostly brands now.